On
 a television talk show recently in which I was a participant, the 
question posed was “Have opposition politicians misunderstood the nature
 of lobbying?” The moderator went straight for the jugular, asking the 
BJP spokesman to defend the assertion of a senior leader of his party, 
who had asserted in Parliament that lobbying is illegal in India.
The
 anchor said his due diligence had satisfied him that lobbying is not 
illegal. Somewhat disingenuously and with the brash confidence of a man 
who knows little, the BJP participant contradicted him, saying there is 
no law that makes lobbying legal. To which the anchor responded: laws 
make things illegal, not legal. The BJP man was having none of it. “Why 
are you standing up for a corrupt company like Walmart?” he asked the 
journalist. “How can the spokesman of a leading political party accuse 
an international firm of corruption on prime time national TV?” I 
interjected. The BJP stalwart was undeterred and continued his rant, 
insisting lobbying is illegal and no different from corruption. It was 
plain that he knew very little about business processes and public 
policy apart from a few stray facts he may have picked up from 
newspapers.
Later,
 Delhi’s middle classes led by Left-leaning student unions took to the 
streets to protest the rape of a woman on a bus in the capital. Their 
demand was for the police chief, the chief minister and the Union home 
minister to resign. Granted, the police in Delhi are not very high on 
anyone’s security assurance list, and that one may have reservations 
about the Congress governments in the state of Delhi and at the Centre. 
But, the heinous crime was committed by violent psychopaths, like the 
shooter in Newtown, Connecticut. I didn’t hear any calls for Obama’s 
head or of the state governor or police chief. Crimes are mostly dealt 
with in retrospect, except in the Tom Cruise sci-fi film, Minority 
Report, which is about seers gifted with the ability to look into the 
future and prevent crime.
Crimes
 are committed the world over and sometimes law enforcement agencies are
 able to anticipate and prevent them. Mostly, they simply happen and 
police hunt down the perpetrators and turn them over to the criminal 
justice system for prosecution and, if proved guilty, punishment.
Then
 there’s the massive media hype about Narendra Modi winning a third term
 in Gujarat. The truth is he won by a smaller margin than five years 
ago; even his vote share has declined. Yet the talking heads and anchors
 of cable television and newspaper reporters would have us believe he 
will be the next prime minister of India. This is an individual who 
refuses to apologise for the riots that killed thousands in Gujarat when
 he was chief minister as well as home minister. While he has never been
 able to shake off allegations that he connived with mass violence, 
there’s no doubt he should be held responsible because he was the man in
 charge.
Every
 time this issue is raised in public, his supporters who are few but 
loud, raise the issue of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi. Both 
incidents, 18 years apart, involved a lapse of governance leading to 
wanton loss of life and are condemnable. Except in the Gujarat case, the
 riots were followed by the systematic boycott of victims which pushed 
them into ghettos, a situation that persists to this day. Modi’s 
triumphalism and communalism is shameless and unapologetic as evident by
 his reference to Congress member Ahmed Patel as Ahmed mian.
A
 common thread runs through these narratives: lack of reasoned 
discourse. Between the media, opposition politicians and sundry 
activists outraged by some atrocity or corruption, debate has 
transformed into noise in which prejudice is the norm. The talking heads
 of television, pundits of print and those who attend exclusive parties 
in the capital, talk at each other without the slightest deference to 
reality. Did Walmart bribe government officials? Was Sheila Dikshit 
asleep when the heinous rape took place? Will Modi be the next prime 
minister? These are the questions being debated in public. Walmart may 
well have indulged in corrupt practices; there is an internal inquiry 
and some executives of the company have been suspended. The Delhi chief 
minister reacted with powers under her control — and that excludes the 
Delhi police — by scrubbing the licence of the operator on whose bus the
 woman was raped. And Modi actually lost ground in Gujarat; he still has
 a brute majority but his national ambitions have dimmed.
The
 Age of Unreason is upon us. People who would normally know better, 
including businessmen, members of the academy, activists, journalists 
and other groups which influence public opinion, seem to have lost their
 bearings. Pursuing their own limited agendas, they have put a crimp on 
Indian modernisation. As a concerned Indian citizen, “J’Accuse”, in the 
words of French writer Emile Zola. But while Zola complained about 
anti-Semitism in France, my complaint is about anti-Congressism. It 
seems to me that the entire political debate in India is focused on this
 grand old party. Those who hate it have forums to express themselves; 
those who are voiceless seem to vote for it, even in Gujarat.
The
 Age of Unreason is what 21st century’s second decade will be called in 
India. Everyone shouts and postures. And judgment seems to have fled to
 brutish beasts.
This article appeared in Education world magazine in January 2013 issue.

 
